You have evidence that he was exonerated, as opposed to having an investigation being shelved for a while? The FBI is not known for exonerating people. Indeed, the entire US justice system is not known for exonerating people. If the members of a jury are fairly sure that the defendant committed the crime he or she is accused of, they are supposed to vote to acquit.
The FBI and DOJ are part of the Executive Branch, but they were created by act of Congress (a very early one in the case of the DOJ) and have responsibilities assigned by Congress. They are not simply supposed to simply obey the President's orders. They are supposed to discharge their duties as assigned by Congress.
The government is not set up as a business, and the President doesn't really have the authority many people seem to think he does.
and got a pass from her Cronies looking forward to her election.
Obviously, Comey wasn't one of her cronies, or he wouldn't have leaked information about the email investigation as he did. Comey did not recommend prosecution.
The chance of an asteroid wiping out civilization is miniscule for the next few thousand years, by which time it won't really matter who developed spaceflight. That's also likely the time it would take to create self-sustaining colonies on other planets.
As far as I'm concerned they burned whatever goodwill they ever had when they fired Brendan Eich for political reasons that had nothing to do with his abilities.
In the first place, being able to deal with people, essentially politics, is one of the things a CEO has to be good at. Mozilla was trying to be inclusive, and Eich had recently made a large donation to deny same-sex couples their civil rights. Eich was going to be significantly less effective at dealing with some people Mozilla needed to deal with. This directly affected his abilities as CEO.
In the second place, what I've seen is compatible with him being fired, him leaving voluntarily after realizing the controversy, and everything in between.
A business that forces a customer to do something against their will ends up losing customers.
The only thing that cost Microsoft customers was tablet computers. Other than that, they're doing great by making customers do whatever it is Microsoft wants them to do. That's the basic market failure here.
Yes, Microsoft can get approximately the same money whether they do a good job or a bad one. This is a clear market failure. In a free market, if one company does a bad job, other companies suck up their business. Normal capitalistic and free market principles do not apply to Microsoft, and so people look for other solutions.
Refusing to bake a cake is one thing. Calling a potential customer an abomination before the Lord is another. The situation with that bakery escalated, and as far as I can tell the bakers started it.
Keeping the costs of health care down is not a real impressive return on 15% of the take.
Single-payer does not mean everyone gets what they want without cost to them. It's possible to have co-pays and medical screenings. What it does is provide everyone with access to basic health care, which does a whole lot more than high-deductible plans. Most developed countries have something of a public-private mix of payment solutions.
There's lots of very intelligent people who have studied philosophy for a long time who don't agree with you, philosophically. If you want to claim that your philosophy is the only correct one, you can marshal up your observations and demonstrate your deductions. Otherwise, I'm going with the experts.
Science works great for things that we can objectively agree on. We can create theories and test them in an objective manner. Philosophy deals with things we can't (historically, once we put something on a scientific foundation, we stopped calling it "philosophy"). Consider ethics: if this could be put on an objective basis we would know what's right and what's wrong. We could know objectively what the correct abortion laws could be. We could know objectively which sorts of influence and coercion were good or evil.
So, you're using the phrase "fundamentally meaningless". In order to put that on a deductive foundation, you need an operational definition of "meaningful" that people would agree with. We have definitions of things like "color" that people agree on (even rod achromats and blind people can agree on them). We don't have such definitions for "good", "evil", and "meaningful". We have no agreed-on way to measure these things.
Mathematics is the process of taking axiomatic systems and coming up with interesting results. That's all it is. We usually use axiomatic systems that relate to the real world, for obvious reasons, and the interesting results often have applications to the real world. Ask any mathematician. I'm not sure where to point you for books to read.
If we're talking about math thousands of years old (and there's not that much of it), we encounter Diophantine equations, which as far as I can tell have never had significant real-world value. The Wikipedia article says nothing about actual uses. Euclidean geometry, rational arithmetic, and a certain amount of number theory date back that far. There was little progress from there until we get to several centuries ago. You're not going to get far describing the world as we understand it with math a thousand years old or more. You need real and complex numbers and non-Euclidean geometry. The math for the theory of everything requires at least results from a few centuries ago.
Dark matter is, as far as we can tell, a real thing. Any theory that dismisses it has to explain why we have apparently random phenomena that look like gravitational lensing showing up where there's no matter, or (in the case of the Bullet Cluster) why the gravitational lensing isn't concentrated around the main bulk of normal matter. Holes in theories are how we advance. We discovered Uranus and Neptune because of holes in orbital mechanics, where planets weren't behaving the way we expected them to.
all modern attempts to understand fundamental particles (outside of quantum mechanics, since that's just a system of equations to describe what we see [e.g. more or less the model of the puzzle, not the answer]) are based on using fundamental math to describe things
Now, this is pretty much correct. The mathematics constitute a model of the puzzle, in some cases an incredibly good model, but still a model. This holds true for all physics.
Any pointers on NASA and geologists thinking they can drain significant heat from Yellowstone? I don't see that as possible with anything resembling current technology.
Starman Jones has at least a small romantic subplot. Have Spacesuit, Will Travel has intimations of potential future romance. That's as close as it gets in those books. Heinlein's juveniles were pretty much sex-free, with perhaps a hint of romance.
There is no significant political movement in the US that is at all comparable to Stalinism or Maoism, just as there is no significant political movement comparable to Nazi Germany or Militarist Japan. (There are proto-Fascist movements, but Mussolini doesn't show on a scale of evil that includes Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the young Japanese officers who enforced their weird idea of what Bushido should be.)
If you watch movies with a chip on your shoulder, you'll miss things.
Poe did a lot of screwing up, but he wasn't the only one. He's in a situation where his usual fighter-pilot virtues don't apply. Rey spends a lot of time and effort trying to bring Kylo Ren back to the light, which has negative consequences. Finn and Rose recruit an independent who informs the First Order of the transport evacuation.
Rey is no more a Mary Sue than Luke was a Marty Stu in the original trilogy. Finn has knowledge of First Order ships and bases that comes in handy.
And, when you indulge in apparently misogynical fantasies, and complain because not every hero is a white man, you rather mark yourself as a sexist racist asshole. I don't have to do that for you.
If you define best-practice safe browsing as avoiding all sites that use advertising (and some are being uncooperative with AdBlock Plus), you may have a point. My wife got pwned by visiting the New York Times once.
Kip Thorne wrote "The Science of Interstellar" and he was pushed back to saying that nothing was actually contrary to known science, which struck me as a very weak statement. He's good at writing about science, so I enjoyed the book.
However, as I understand them, wormholes are in both places at the same time. Therefore, the big black hole (which had to be at least galaxy-mass, considering the lack of tidal effects at the event horizon), should have been attracting everything in the Solar System, so why launch a spacecraft to get to the other side?
One looks like wish-fulfillment for pagans, and probably a fair number of white supremacists. One looks like wish fulfillment for beautiful women who want to be taken seriously. One looks like wish-fulfillment for geeks who want to use their intellect for practical purposes. One looks like wish-fulfillment for physical weaklings. I can keep going. Plenty of wish fulfillment going on.
Whereas you lot were the most efficient mass murderers in history. Check how many people Nazi Germany managed to kill, and Japan from 1937 on. Stalin and Mao just didn't manage the same rate; they had to make it up with longevity.
Actually, as a leftist, I'm in favor of people marrying who they like and using the appropriate rest rooms. Only the right wing seems interested in splitting potential newlyweds into same sex and opposite sex, or requiring people to use inappropriate rest rooms.
How can I get in on this Windows 10 that doesn't slow or hang whenever it feels like it? My TRS-80, approximately a million times less powerful, felt more responsive.
Slashdot Mirror
You have evidence that he was exonerated, as opposed to having an investigation being shelved for a while? The FBI is not known for exonerating people. Indeed, the entire US justice system is not known for exonerating people. If the members of a jury are fairly sure that the defendant committed the crime he or she is accused of, they are supposed to vote to acquit.
The FBI and DOJ are part of the Executive Branch, but they were created by act of Congress (a very early one in the case of the DOJ) and have responsibilities assigned by Congress. They are not simply supposed to simply obey the President's orders. They are supposed to discharge their duties as assigned by Congress.
The government is not set up as a business, and the President doesn't really have the authority many people seem to think he does.
So you say.
Obviously, Comey wasn't one of her cronies, or he wouldn't have leaked information about the email investigation as he did. Comey did not recommend prosecution.
The chance of an asteroid wiping out civilization is miniscule for the next few thousand years, by which time it won't really matter who developed spaceflight. That's also likely the time it would take to create self-sustaining colonies on other planets.
In the first place, being able to deal with people, essentially politics, is one of the things a CEO has to be good at. Mozilla was trying to be inclusive, and Eich had recently made a large donation to deny same-sex couples their civil rights. Eich was going to be significantly less effective at dealing with some people Mozilla needed to deal with. This directly affected his abilities as CEO.
In the second place, what I've seen is compatible with him being fired, him leaving voluntarily after realizing the controversy, and everything in between.
The only thing that cost Microsoft customers was tablet computers. Other than that, they're doing great by making customers do whatever it is Microsoft wants them to do. That's the basic market failure here.
Yes, Microsoft can get approximately the same money whether they do a good job or a bad one. This is a clear market failure. In a free market, if one company does a bad job, other companies suck up their business. Normal capitalistic and free market principles do not apply to Microsoft, and so people look for other solutions.
Refusing to bake a cake is one thing. Calling a potential customer an abomination before the Lord is another. The situation with that bakery escalated, and as far as I can tell the bakers started it.
You're making assumptions and overgeneralizing.
Keeping the costs of health care down is not a real impressive return on 15% of the take.
Single-payer does not mean everyone gets what they want without cost to them. It's possible to have co-pays and medical screenings. What it does is provide everyone with access to basic health care, which does a whole lot more than high-deductible plans. Most developed countries have something of a public-private mix of payment solutions.
There's lots of very intelligent people who have studied philosophy for a long time who don't agree with you, philosophically. If you want to claim that your philosophy is the only correct one, you can marshal up your observations and demonstrate your deductions. Otherwise, I'm going with the experts.
Science works great for things that we can objectively agree on. We can create theories and test them in an objective manner. Philosophy deals with things we can't (historically, once we put something on a scientific foundation, we stopped calling it "philosophy"). Consider ethics: if this could be put on an objective basis we would know what's right and what's wrong. We could know objectively what the correct abortion laws could be. We could know objectively which sorts of influence and coercion were good or evil.
So, you're using the phrase "fundamentally meaningless". In order to put that on a deductive foundation, you need an operational definition of "meaningful" that people would agree with. We have definitions of things like "color" that people agree on (even rod achromats and blind people can agree on them). We don't have such definitions for "good", "evil", and "meaningful". We have no agreed-on way to measure these things.
Mathematics is the process of taking axiomatic systems and coming up with interesting results. That's all it is. We usually use axiomatic systems that relate to the real world, for obvious reasons, and the interesting results often have applications to the real world. Ask any mathematician. I'm not sure where to point you for books to read.
If we're talking about math thousands of years old (and there's not that much of it), we encounter Diophantine equations, which as far as I can tell have never had significant real-world value. The Wikipedia article says nothing about actual uses. Euclidean geometry, rational arithmetic, and a certain amount of number theory date back that far. There was little progress from there until we get to several centuries ago. You're not going to get far describing the world as we understand it with math a thousand years old or more. You need real and complex numbers and non-Euclidean geometry. The math for the theory of everything requires at least results from a few centuries ago.
Dark matter is, as far as we can tell, a real thing. Any theory that dismisses it has to explain why we have apparently random phenomena that look like gravitational lensing showing up where there's no matter, or (in the case of the Bullet Cluster) why the gravitational lensing isn't concentrated around the main bulk of normal matter. Holes in theories are how we advance. We discovered Uranus and Neptune because of holes in orbital mechanics, where planets weren't behaving the way we expected them to.
Now, this is pretty much correct. The mathematics constitute a model of the puzzle, in some cases an incredibly good model, but still a model. This holds true for all physics.
Any pointers on NASA and geologists thinking they can drain significant heat from Yellowstone? I don't see that as possible with anything resembling current technology.
Starman Jones has at least a small romantic subplot. Have Spacesuit, Will Travel has intimations of potential future romance. That's as close as it gets in those books. Heinlein's juveniles were pretty much sex-free, with perhaps a hint of romance.
There is no significant political movement in the US that is at all comparable to Stalinism or Maoism, just as there is no significant political movement comparable to Nazi Germany or Militarist Japan. (There are proto-Fascist movements, but Mussolini doesn't show on a scale of evil that includes Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the young Japanese officers who enforced their weird idea of what Bushido should be.)
If you watch movies with a chip on your shoulder, you'll miss things.
Poe did a lot of screwing up, but he wasn't the only one. He's in a situation where his usual fighter-pilot virtues don't apply. Rey spends a lot of time and effort trying to bring Kylo Ren back to the light, which has negative consequences. Finn and Rose recruit an independent who informs the First Order of the transport evacuation.
Rey is no more a Mary Sue than Luke was a Marty Stu in the original trilogy. Finn has knowledge of First Order ships and bases that comes in handy.
And, when you indulge in apparently misogynical fantasies, and complain because not every hero is a white man, you rather mark yourself as a sexist racist asshole. I don't have to do that for you.
If you define best-practice safe browsing as avoiding all sites that use advertising (and some are being uncooperative with AdBlock Plus), you may have a point. My wife got pwned by visiting the New York Times once.
I liked The Last Jedi, but it wasn't the same sort of movie as previous Star Wars movies. Heroes screwed up and people suffered for it, for example.
Kip Thorne wrote "The Science of Interstellar" and he was pushed back to saying that nothing was actually contrary to known science, which struck me as a very weak statement. He's good at writing about science, so I enjoyed the book.
However, as I understand them, wormholes are in both places at the same time. Therefore, the big black hole (which had to be at least galaxy-mass, considering the lack of tidal effects at the event horizon), should have been attracting everything in the Solar System, so why launch a spacecraft to get to the other side?
One looks like wish-fulfillment for pagans, and probably a fair number of white supremacists. One looks like wish fulfillment for beautiful women who want to be taken seriously. One looks like wish-fulfillment for geeks who want to use their intellect for practical purposes. One looks like wish-fulfillment for physical weaklings. I can keep going. Plenty of wish fulfillment going on.
Whereas you lot were the most efficient mass murderers in history. Check how many people Nazi Germany managed to kill, and Japan from 1937 on. Stalin and Mao just didn't manage the same rate; they had to make it up with longevity.
Actually, as a leftist, I'm in favor of people marrying who they like and using the appropriate rest rooms. Only the right wing seems interested in splitting potential newlyweds into same sex and opposite sex, or requiring people to use inappropriate rest rooms.
I don't remember one from Rocket Ship Galileo. Also, in some of his later books, sex appeared to be the main plot, not the sub-plot.
Only about 93% of all humans have died yet, so it's not quite time to call it statistically significant.
How can I get in on this Windows 10 that doesn't slow or hang whenever it feels like it? My TRS-80, approximately a million times less powerful, felt more responsive.
C'mon. If the impact was hard enough, not all of them are going to be moving too fast to be buried.